The Good Guy

Why is this film worth writing about? Well, read on and I'll be more than happy to explain, only briefly...because it wasn't that great. What an introduction, eh?
Anywho, The Good Guy is narrated by a young, hansom Wall Street trader who wants to tell us a story about how he lost the woman of his dreams.  Surrounded by Gordon Gekko types, this gentleman is presented to us as a nice guy who stands up for his friends, vouches for the underdog and cherishes his girlfriend; the Wall Street veneer is only a means to make the money needed to really do something great with his life. And that is where we are all wrong.  He has told us that's who he is and shown us only the parts of his life that back that claim.
I honestly cant tell you anything else or I will ruin the film.  If you are like me and continuously searching for an intelligent girly movie to sink into after a long day, this might be as good as it gets without becoming political, hence the need to honor this film for its departure from the formula.
Generally in these romantic "Chick-flicks" we can trust that the narrator is truthfully telling their side of the story.  The Good Guy subverts this assumption and uses it later to present the real thesis of the film: who is the good guy, and are people ever really who they seem to be? Maybe that sounds a bit cynical, but its a fairly common experience to create an ideal fantasy in a new relationship, and The Good Guy plays with this phenomena.  Direction, acting, cinematography were all average, but the script, concept and execution were surprisingly fresh.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls

Recommended reading to anyone curious about the inner workings of the rebel 70's in Hollywood. Beginning with the highly influential 1967 Bonnie & Clyde, Easy Riders Raging Bulls relentlessly exposes the processes, dramas and ambitions behind one of the greatest movements in cinema history.  Well researched and smartly written, this book will change the way you think about the American film industry.

Remember Me: Where Romance and 9/11 Awkwardly Merge

  First, let me plug and simultaneously defend myself here.  I am an expert in Post-9/11 Cinema. I also have a penchant for debunking the Rom-Com mythology as a sort of new wave feminist - half my interest in these silly films is zoomed in on escapism while the other half likes to keep a running critical dialog of the formulaic and insultingly unintelligent yarns unfolding on my screen.  That being said, at this stage in my development as a film scholar, I generally avoid watching anything with 9/11 themes (one can only take so much), and smart, well produced Romantic Comedies have become very few and far between, rendering my viewing experience more work, than pleasure. And I hate that. I became a film scholar for one very good reason (or at least I thought it was a good reason 2 degrees and a gabillion dollars in student loans ago), and that reason is: I love cinema, and I have generally been a lead by the heart and foolish kind of person.  I love nearly everything about the art of film, from the mundane to the subliminal, from the culturally relevant to the exquisitely propagandised elements both overt and covert.  I love the artifice almost as much as I love the way in which a great film can wholly transport me directly inside a completely different world.  Now, as a theory scholar and cultural critic, it is my charge to deconstruct those created worlds, much like someone who takes apart an electronic gadget, figures out how it works, and then puts it all back together as it was.  Passive viewing has become unacceptable, and frankly, I miss it sometimes.  The voices of the great theorists Andre Bazin, Robin Wood and team Bordwell - Thompson enter into my viewing sanctuary and give me no peace inside these worlds...only chatter and commands.  Those who cannot do, teach.  And is that not what a critic really aspires to be? Someone who can eloquently unmask a series of illusions in order to expose an immutable truth?  The student then may decide the shape and size of that truth, but remains changed simply due to the exposure itself, embracing rather than running from questions as they arise.  That's what happened to me anyway, watching re-broadcast tapes of the "live" footage of September 11th, 2001 in downtown New York City and pondering a question my theory professor had so boldly presented to me - what is meant here by the word "live"...the questions and my answers sounded and resonated more like philosophy that film studies.  And there inlays the beauty of this field - all humanity is linked by these enmeshed strands of conventional wisdom, group think and our human condition, ever yearning to feel a part of something greater, like a feeling of being all alone in a crowded room.

When I departed for the local Blockbuster yesterday afternoon, I already knew I was going to pick up "Remember Me", which was just released to DVD and stars the teen-throb of the moment Robert Pattinson.  Ha, Ha, Ha...no...I know what your thinking and you are wrong. I am not, nor will I ever be, an R-Pat fan, but I was curious as to why the film did so poorly at the box-office considering the tremendous draw of Robbie P's busted, yet strangely attractive, pale Brit face.
The cover art of the DVD told me several things:
1.  This is a cheesy romance, heavily reliant upon the good looks of its male lead.
2.  It doesn't work out well in the end.
3.  Its has an overt 9/11 theme, but then again, I can sniff out a 9/11 film a mile away.  How did I know?  NYC cityscape on the back fold and the film set in 2001. Why would any film be set in 2001 in NYC and not have something to say about the falling of the Twin Towers? 
But to merge a Twenty-something college romance coming of age family drama with a post 9/11 event conflict, is wonky to begin with.  It would require an absolutely superb creative team to pull off a film like that properly.  I already knew:
4. Anything with Rob Pats in it could not possibly have met the challenge.
But these were only first impressions, I hadn't even watched it yet.

Robert Pattinsons performance was awkward and self conscious, like a kid who used to be fat and is now the James Dean fantasy of every woman he meets. Unsure of how to wield this new found power over the sexes, Pattinson's wincingly modest hold over acting destroys all efforts at maintaining the imaginary "4th wall", or suspension of disbelief.  But the narrative blunders forward despite the best efforts of the young actors to make it sickeningly melodramatic.  The viewer is introduced to two dysfunctional families, both rendered this way because of tragic losses, a murdered mother and a brother lost to suicide.  The "meet cute" between boy and girl is, of course, a wussy revenge/bet plot which ends up becoming a true love with a secret scenario.  Either way, the two have bonded over a misunderstood world view shaped by their experiences of grief.

By the end of the film the seemingly trivial conflicts have been righted and everything appears to be on the up and up for both families and for the young lovers.  "I love you", he says to her before heading out to a meeting with his father at his downtown office.  A beautiful blue sky September morning in downtown New York. He takes the elevator up to the 89th Floor...and then we see the date.  September 11, 2001.  He waits for his father to arrive, taking in the glorious view of the city below.  Cut to the streets: people running, people gathering around television screens, people emerging on the roof tops eyes transfixed on some imaginary point on the horizon, mouths agape.  We know already how this story has ended....and how it began.  The film ends with a montage of images symbolic of the passage of time and the continuation of a city, a family, of life after a tragedy.

The two genres, romance and apocalyptic drama, come together in Remember Me in an attempt to draw attention to one of several moralistic themes. Whether you choose to hear "take nothing for granted" louder than "live everyday as your last" is entirely up to you.  What I found unique about this film is the manner in which the terrorist attack is surprisingly unveiled.  At first this plot device doesn't seem to fit at all.  Upon further reflection, I realized that the element of shock was the dominant feeling amongst Americans on 9/11 and this film was literally attempting to recreate the way 9/11 happened for all of us. Did we as citizens of the United States, as inhabitants of the great cities of New York and Washington, DC ever imagine a world where airplanes could crash into our most prideful ideologies and topple them like dandelions to the wind? 

From a strictly film as art point of view, Remember Me is tragic cinema - it could have been magnificent, but instead it weasels by on its intentions.       

I Paid to Watch a 2 Hour Commercial: Sex & the City 2

...and I am still kicking myself for not demanding a refund of my ticket price.

SEX AND THE CITY #1:

Sex and the City, the HBO drama that lasted 6 beloved seasons, should have made some great cinema. The first film wasn't too bad.  It opened to huge crowds, many of whom got themselves all tarted up, purchasing new dresses and shoes hoping to impress all the other Carrie wanna-be's.  The first film was wildly successful from a Hollywood perspective. It made very serious money. It appeared to satisfy a lusty audience, and provided innumerable opportunities to cross market a wide array of products...aaannnnndddddd the story wasn't too obnoxious. While the first film strayed from the typically streamlined domesticated New York Goddess vision of feminism, it was still the show we knew and loved.  Hot topics were address such as infidelity, materialism and a woman's responsibility to care for herself - not rely entirely on a marriage in order to be settled.  There were great Carrie moments and yes, lots and lots of clothes.  It wasn't the television show...but it wasn't NOT the television show either. 

Sex and the City 2:

May I speak frankly? Trash. All the worst elements of the entertainment industry in the United States. No substance other than its own hype. Nothing in this film wasn't a cross-marketed commercial ploy, from the resort in Abu Dabi, to the ring Mr. Big gives Carrie at the end (I was tempted just then to write the phrase Spoiler Alert...because I told you she got a ring...OOoooOOOOoo...what a thrilling plot twist that is!).  In an attempt to be culturally relevant, appear poignant and astute on current topics, Sex and the City 2 flippantly criticizes, belittles, and proffers a searing judgment of A) the Middle East as a whole, B) Muslims and C) Middle Eastern / Muslim Women.  After watching this film, I can't see how anyone could have imagined that the Middle East (and its people) would look worse when compared to these 4 aging, has-been, materialistic, out-of-control, New York bitches. 

My hope for the future of the Sex and the City franchise: Stop it. Right now. Just Stop. Its was good while it lasted, but it went one too far.     

The Pirate Radio Boat that Used to Rock

Before I moved back to the United States from Dublin, a friend and I went to see the new Richard Curtis film titled The Boat that Rocked.  Now, Richard Curtis is generally understood to be the best British Romantic Comedy writer/producer/director, and is particularly brilliant at cross marketing his films by incorporating into his stories an "across the pond" connection a.k.a. highlighting the "special relationship" between the cultures of the United States and Great Britain.  Just look at Notting Hill and Love Actually...both inarguably British films, but heavy on the canned-ham sentiment that American audiences goggle up, plus there are always American characters and American actors playing those characters.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that production studios and film distributors are mainly in the film business to make money. Artistic integrity and the theories of "art for arts sake" are generally low on the totem pole.  But when we have a cross-cultural blend-film like The Boat that Rocked, it becomes blazingly apparent where British and US distributors differ.

 I loved The Boat that Rocked. It was just what I needed at the end of a long, stressful and drearily rainy week in Ireland.  My friend and I howled with laughter, we danced in our seats, and we chattered like hungry Gibbons afterward with reflections of praise.  Therefore, when the film was re-distributed here in the United States under the title Pirate Radio, I recommended it to friends, my parents, strangers, people at work, basically anyone who would listen.  This past weekend, I wanted a little break from screening think-piece films so I rented Pirate Radio.  About an hour in to the film I realized that something wasn't right - then it hit me - the film had been re-edited down from a lengthy (but awesome) 2.5 hours to a reasonable (yet hurried and more serious) 2 hours.  The basic dilemma here is the assumption that American audiences are less likely to see a 2.5 hour film than they are to see a 2 hour film.  You may have noticed already that most films time in at about 1.5 hours long.  This is because marketing and revenue strategists working for the production studios and distribution houses know that the longer the film, the fewer the screenings a theater will be able to offer thus reducing box-office takes and lowering the projected profits for any given film.  I have also read that it is widely understood amongst said studios that an audience only has an attention span of approximately 1.5 hours.  How insulting - not that it matters - because you can easily guess which of these two factors is the really motivator for setting limits on a films running time.  Its is a real shame. I will quote for you this statement found on IMDB.com: 
"US distributor, Universal have chosen to re-title the film as "Pirate Radio" and release it under Focus Features in US territories. This new version will be edited for length by director Richard Curtis after some European reviewers cited its 135 minute running time as a factor in its diminished success."
According to MovieMojo.com the films budget was $50M US and as of Oct, 2009 the film had only grossed $36M US.  Perhaps the studios should have focused on marketing and advertising rather than trimming a brilliant film. 

This re-editing of The Boat that Rocked / Pirate Radio essentially ruined the film.  Some of the most hilarious scenes have vanished.  The tone of the film become less about happy-go-lucky frivolity and more talkie-talkie drama.  The Boat that Rocked / Pirate Radio is a perfect example of how when U.S. distributors get their mitts on a great yet board-line film (and by that I mean challenging to market) they just make a mess of what they intended to "fix".  If you want to see this film, please find the UK 2.5 hours version THE BOAT THAT ROCKED...cuz it does :)

Breakfast at Tiffany's - Pure Food Poisioning

I don't know how many people, and by people I do mean both men and women, have said to me that the 1961 Audrey Hepburn film Breakfast at Tiffany's is their favorite film. Whatever the number, believe me, it has been many.  As an exercise in keeping myself knowledgeable of the canonical body of film "classics", I decided to finally watch this film, after all, how could so many people say they love this film and it have nothing interesting to say?  I would agree, this film contains a chatter-boxy diatribe of overtly didactic messages...too bad they are all inherently negative.  Racist... Sexist... Obnoxious... Forced...  These are the words that floated through my mind.  It must have been refreshing back in 1961 to find a film heroin such as Holly Golightly: wispy, free-spirited, independent, fashionable - but with a semi-relatable girl-next-door quality; a far cry from the conservative/matronly vs. vixen/temptress roles reserved for women in the B&W era. However, the script is limited to what was culturally acceptable subject matter in the early 60'.  Holly Golightly is obviously a prostitute, or at least she is a well paid escort.  The stage name, which she assigned to herself after making a break from the country to the city, reeks of a bygone era of cutesy-poo stripperdom.  As a character, it is apparent that Holly is supposed to pass for an actress of some sort, with an agent who comes to the rescue on more than one occasion, but whom should probably be interpreted as more pimp than agent.  I don't deny that Audrey Hepburn is a beautiful woman, and embodies the waifish aesthetics popularized by the French New Wave, but the role, her Holly character, is so obnoxious I almost couldn't watch it.  In the end, I would imagine that the moral of the story is to follow your heart, not your pocketbook, but even that is a bit of a shame.  Holly needed to be saved by Paul, aka Fred, and brought around to her senses, a sort of daddy-come-and-clean-up-my-mess narrative.  These damsels in distress / gentleman savior narratives are as old as cinema, but Breakfast at Tiffany's is merciless.  Rather than approaching Holly as a confused and complicated woman, Holly is made to be an insufferable child who happens to be pretty and can flaunt her sex-appeal to attract a suitable man, Paul, who will help her to see the error of her gold-digging ways. 
Mickey Rooney plays the Chinese neighbor from upstairs.  Within the first several minutes of the film, we are bludgeoned by despicable, racist representations of minority culture, beginning with the basic fact that a white actor has been made-up to play a Chinese man with stereotypically exaggerated features, ending with the slapstick stupidity with which the character interacts with his environment. Disgusting. That alone would lose my vote completely for "favorite film". It leaves me to wonder why anyone would call Breakfast at Tiffany's a classic.  I found it to be nearly unwatchable.         
   

Moments that Melt You: Philadelphia, la Mamma Morta

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0p9mTJOJI

If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say "the opera scene from Philadelphia", please click the You Tube link presented above and spend 5 minutes with cinematic greatness. I have heard it said that this scene solidified the Oscar win for Tom Hanks.  It certainly is a masterful performance as well as an example of genuine cinematic artistry.  Minimal and pure, all elements of this scene contain poignant meaning and emotion.  The lighting, the angle of the camera, the close-ups of Hanks face as he becomes the embodiment of Maria Callas vocal suffering, the manifestation of the miraculous emotive quality of the music, and the curious cuts back to Denzel Washington as he finds himself immersed within his clients grief and lust for life. When the film was released in 1993, I was 14 and no more interested in Opera or cinematic artifice as I was in eating liver for dinner. I wanted to be entertained, not asked to think about mortality and the impact of art and music on the vibrations of the transcendent soul.  This scene helped me to fall in love with art, fall in love with music and fall in love with the cinema.  Such moments are rare enough in life, but reflect the human need for artistic self-expression and acceptance of the awesome nature of the mysteries of connectedness.